Research Proposal
1
GRAD 695 Proposal Rubrics Front Matter
# Topic Unacceptable Novice Competence Excellent
1. Title page Title misspelled or other misspellings present; not descriptive of intent; does not include student name, class, or date; does not use the required format
Title spelled correctly and no other misspellings present; minimally descriptive of intent; includes student name, date, and class; elements of required format missing
Title spelled correctly and no misspellings present; descriptive of intent; includes student name, date, and class; elements of required format all present
Title unmistakably describes content; no misspellings or missing elements; format faithfully followed.
2. Abstract Not present; does not provide overview of work; does not create reader motivation
Present, but does not provide clear overview of work; does not address context, purpose, methodology and results; does not create significant reader motivation
Adequate overview of work; effective presentation of context, purpose, methodology and results; creates interest in content
Complete overview of work; superior summation of context, purpose, methodology and results; creates significant interest in content
3. Table of contents
TOC missing or typed by hand; missing elements; misspellings present
TOC present: typed by hand, but includes all relevant sections; misspellings present; page numbers or other identifiers missing
TOC present; automatically generated by word processing software; no misspellings; no missing sections, identifiers, or page numbers
TOC present; automatically generated and adjusts to added or deleted sections or subsections; no misspellings; no missing sections, identifiers, or page numbers
4. CPT relationship Missing Present but not adequately specified
Present but some elements of specification missing
Completely specified
Introduction # Topic Unacceptable
(1) Novice (2)
Competence (3)
Excellent (4)
2
1. Content/Flow Fails to build toward problem statement; does not build interest in problem; does not define critical terms or concepts
Inadequate build toward problem statement; little or no interest created, or context provided; critical terms or concepts missing
Builds toward problem statement; builds interest and provides context; critical terms and concepts covered
Creates interest and flows logically toward problem statement; critical terms and concepts support flow and interest
2. Background and/or
introductory literature
Does not introduce reader to general problem area; does not provide supporting literature or connection to analogous or related problems; provides no details of the scope of the study
Reader unable to determine full extent of problem area; little in the way of supporting literature or connection to analogous or related problems; cited research does not match problem area; insufficient details of the study scope
Problem area identified; literature cited supports understanding of problem area or analogous or related literature used to support understanding; sufficient details of study scope
Problem area thoroughly identified so that reader understands the extent and scope of the area; breadth/depth of cited literature builds the readers appreciation of the problem area
3. Research Questions
Missing or too broad to identify contribution; not original
Present but not clear; not tied to Introduction content
Clearly stated and grounded in Introduction
Traces a thread for the entire study which ties together all subsequent sections
4. Justification for study
Missing or no convincing justification
Current and desired state of knowledge and/or practice unclear; does not outline advantages of potential knowledge gained
Identifies current and desired state of knowledge and/or practice; identifies advantages of potential knowledge gained
Convinces reader of the necessity of the study; study aims seen as desirable and beneficial to research or practice
5. Statement of thesis
organization
Not present Present, but not clearly indicative of flow of thesis
Clearly indicative of flow of thesis
Flow of thesis wrapped in attention‐grabbing sentences.
Literature Review/Analysis of Related Work # Topic Unacceptable
(1) Novice (2)
Competence (3)
Excellent (4)
1. Related work/Source relevance
No relevant or comparable material/studies described; no justification for lack of missing supporting materials/studies
Minimal relevance or comparability of previous studies; inadequate justification of lack of missing supporting materials/studies; sources do not clearly support understanding of the problem statement and/or research goals
Cited literature, studies, experiments, or analogous applications clearly relevant; sources clearly support understanding of the problem statement and/or research goals
Cited literature, studies, experiments, or analogous applications further understanding of the significance of the problem statement and help support the need for the proposal’s study
3
2. Related work/Source
recency
No ‘recent’ sources or cited related work OR no justification for absence of recent sources or related works
Most sources or cited related works are not recent OR little or no justification for absence of recent sources or related works
All sources are recent enough for inclusion; included older works are ‘classic’ or well‐cited sources of other existing studies OR justification for absence of recent studies or related works
Source or cited related work recency justified; recency of sources helps create impetus for current study
3. Number and sources origin
No reviewed sources or related work; no justification for lack of related works or sources; dominated by questionable, non‐ reputable or non‐academic sources
Very few sources or cited related works; little or no justification for lack of related works or sources; cited sources and related works are a mixture of questionable, non‐reputable or non‐academic sources;
Adequate number of cited related works; adequate justification for lack of related works or sources; no questionable, non‐reputable or non‐academic sources;
Number and kind of sources are adequate in both number and reputation; caliber of sources and related works creates confidence in necessity or justification for proposal
4. Content/Flow No flow or narrative logic in review
No buildup in narrative or analysis
Literature review or analysis follows a progressive logic
Narrative flows effortlessly, incorporating cited sources and related works as it builds toward or with the development of propositions or hypotheses
5. Conceptual framework,
hypotheses or propositions developed
None in evidence Inadequate, unrealistic or inappropriate propositions or hypotheses; does not flow from the cited literature or related works; does not match the given problem statement; framework for the study was designed using some factors affecting study
Propositions or hypotheses developed are adequate and mostly realistic for the given problem statement; flow from the cited works and literature; framework for the study was designed using most factors affecting study
Propositions or hypotheses are superiorly stated and derived from the cited works and literature; provide confidence in the future results of the study; framework for the study was designed using all the factors affecting study
4
6. Analysis Most gaps in literature, theory, or practice were missing; most claims made were not supported with pieces of scholarly/practical evidence; most articles/works cited were not critically analyzed.
Some gaps in literature, theory, or practice were identified. some claims made were supported with pieces of scholarly/practical evidence; some articles/works cited were critically analyzed.
Most gaps in literature, theory, or practice were identified; most claims made were supported with pieces of scholarly/practical evidence; most articles/works cited were critically analyzed.
All gaps in literature, theory, or practice were identified; all claims made were supported with pieces of scholarly/practical evidence; all articles used were critically analyzed.
Methodology/Proposed Solution Approach # Topic Unacceptable
(1) Novice (2)
Competence (3)
Excellent (4)
1. Presence of Research
Instrument and Overall
Completion
Methods or methodology not identified; missing study design
Methods or methodology not clearly identified or only loosely identified, missing or overly brief study design
Methods or methodology clearly identified; adequate study design
Methods or methodology clearly identified; superior study design
2. Reliability and Validity
None present Selected methods or methodology clearly inappropriate to the study
Selected methods or methodology appropriate to the study
Justification builds confidence in the study and its results
3. Data Collection Plan
Input data or other artifacts not in evidence or not identified; no indication of anticipated results or artifacts generated
Input data or other artifacts not clearly in evidence or not clearly identified; little indication of anticipated results or artifacts generated
Input data or other artifacts clearly identified; connected to hypotheses
Input data or other artifacts clearly indicated and woven into methodology narrative in manner that effectively supports tests of hypotheses or propositions
5
4. Plan for Data Analysis
No indication of how data or related artifacts will be analyzed
Little or inadequate indication of how data or related artifacts will be analyzed
Clear indication of how data or related artifacts will be analyzed; adequate relationship to hypotheses or propositions
Superior demonstration of how data or related artifacts will be analyzed, supporting relationship to hypotheses or propositions clearly in evidence
Bibliography/References # Topic Unacceptable
(1) Novice (2)
Competence (3)
Excellent (4)
1. Presence Missing entirely or sources unidentifiable
Several sources missing, or sources cited which do not appear in the proposal; some sources unidentifiable; software not used to
All used sources cited; no unused sources; all sources identifiable
All used sources cited; no unused sources; all sources identifiable; all sources accessible
2. Format Prescribed format not used
Prescribed format has missing/misused elements
Format followed; slight errors that are easily corrected
Format followed; no errors
Preliminary Work Plan # Topic Unacceptable
(1) Novice (2)
Competence (3)
Excellent (4)
1. Timeline None Unclear; not detailed enough to track predicted progress
Clear; detailed enough to track predicted progress
All elements of the schedule map clearly to
corresponding elements of the thesis
2. Materials None specified Not clearly identified and/or not clearly tied to an
appropriate use in the work
Clearly specified; clearly tied to activities in the work
Materials mapped to work/timeline in a way that increases understanding of
the study